The Condon Report Is Released, 1968
A fraudulent research report with which the U.S. Air Force covered up UFOs. The Condon Report was released in 1968, produced under a commission from the U.S. Air Force by an influential physicist at the University of Colorado, for the purpose of feigning a serious study and reaching conclusions that were not true, so as to end public enthusiasm for UFOs and Project Blue Book.
In the late 1960s, the U.S. Air Force signed a contract with the University of Colorado to conduct a scientific study of the evidence concerning the UFO phenomenon. The project director was Professor Edward U. Condon, a distinguished and influential physicist who made no secret of his view that, even at the outset, no substantive evidence of extraterrestrial visitation would be found. The study was relatively short (2 years), and the budget for serious scientific research was very low (about $500,000). When the Condon Report was released in 1968, the American scientific community accepted its apparently negative conclusions about the evidence for extraterrestrial visitation in a generally uncritical way, and to some extent even enthusiastically, because it brought a troublesome situation to an end. After an unusually rapid review, the National Academy of Sciences endorsed the report, and the Air Force quickly used the report as justification for ending any further public involvement with the UFO subject. Project Blue Book closed up shop. Yet the report’s negative conclusions were more apparent than real, because there was a substantial discrepancy between the conclusions in the “Summary of the Study,” written single-handedly by Condon, and the conclusions one could reasonably draw from the evidence presented in the body of the report. (Bernard Haisch, UFOSkeptic.org)
In the late 1960’s, the United States Air Force issued a contract to the University of Colorado to carry out a scientific study of evidence concerning the UFO phenomenon. The director of the project was Prof. Edward U. Condon, a distinguished and influential physicist who made no secret of his opinion even at the outset that no substantive evidence for extraterrestrial visitation was liable to result. The study was relatively brief (2 years) and had a notably low budget (app. $500K) for a serious scientific study. When the Condon Report was released in 1968, the American scientific community accepted its negative apparent conclusion concerning evidence for extraterrestrial visitation in a generally uncritical way, and to some extent even an enthusiastic way since it offered an end to a troublesome situation. An endorsement of the Report by the National Academy of Sciences took place following an unusually rapid review and the Air Force quickly used the Report as a justification to terminate any further public involvement with the topic of UFOs. Project Blue Book closed up shop. The negative conclusion of the Report is more apparent than real however, since there is a substantial discrepancy between the conclusion in the “Summary of the Study” written by Condon singlehandedly, and the conclusion one could reasonably draw from the evidence presented in the body of the Report. (Bernard Haisch, UFOSkeptic.org)
Related articles
An Analysis of the Condon Report on the Colorado UFO Project
Peter A. Sturrock (Stanford University), Journal of Scientific Exploration
An in-depth analysis of the Condon Report spells out many discrepancies between Condon’s dismissive summary and the actual data. – An analysis of the evidence by category shows a substantial and significant difference between the findings of the project staff and the director’s findings on the project. Although both the director and the staff were cautious in stating their conclusions, the staff tended to emphasize challenging cases and unresolved questions, while the director emphasized the difficulty of further research and the possibility that no scientific knowledge was to be gained.
Dr. Thornton Page’s Review of the “Condon Report”
Thornton Page, American Journal of Physics, October 1969
In a sense, the Condon Report lives up to its title, Scientific Study, because physical principles and the available data were carefully applied to more than 56 selected, well-documented “cases” (UFO sightings), and 33 cases were explained as a result. Yet, as several other reviewers have pointed out, that leaves an unexplained proportion of more than about 10 percent, which is what caused all the uproar and forced the Air Force to fund the Colorado project in the first place. One might therefore argue that the conclusions Condon carefully wrote (the first five pages of the report) do not follow logically from the case studies.
Flying Saucer Fiasco
John G. Fuller, Look magazine, May 14, 1968
The extraordinary story of a $500,000 “trick” to make Americans believe the Condon Committee was conducting an objective investigation.
National Academy of Sciences (NAS) Panel Reviews the Condon Report
National Academy of Sciences / Sign Historical Group
A positive evaluation and endorsement of the University of Colorado report on unidentified flying objects (the Condon Report). – The panel’s charge was “to conduct an independent assessment of the scope, methods, and findings of the (University of Colorado) study, as reflected in the (University’s) report.”
Secrets of the Condon Report
Flying Saucers and UFOs, 1969, Vol. 3
Reprinted excerpts of articles on the Condon Report from Flying Saucers and Unidentified Flying Objects magazine.
Condon Report (Stanton Friedman review/comment)
Stanton Friedman (Stanton Friedman), Crash at Corona
The enthusiastic support [for the Condon study] that initially came from major private UFO groups soon soured, because it became obvious that the outspoken director of the study, Dr. Edward Condon, had concluded in advance that there was little to be learned from investigating UFOs.
Condon Report (review/comment)
Bernard Haisch, Ph.D., astrophysicist
Yet the report’s negative conclusions were more apparent than real, because there was a substantial discrepancy between the conclusions in the “Summary of the Study,” written single-handedly by Condon, and the conclusions one could reasonably draw from the evidence presented in the body of the report.
Condon Report (University of Colorado report on unidentified flying objects, 1968)
University of Colorado / U.S. Air Force
The full text of the Condon Report, conducted by the University of Colorado with the U.S. Air Force under the direction of Dr. Edward U. Condon.
The Condon Report and UFOs – J. Allen Hynek review
J. Allen Hynek, Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, April 1969
Hynek disagreed with the Condon Report and, in this review, explained why.
The Truth About the Condon Report
NICAP (National Investigations Committee on Aerial Phenomena), UFO Investigator, Vol. IV, No. 9, SPECIAL (January 1969)
As we predicted, the conclusions of the University of Colorado UFO project were wholly negative. Yet some chapters stand in strange contradiction to what the project director, Dr. Edward U. Condon, said in his two opening sections. Some of the reports indicate that there may exist structured, intelligently controlled unknown objects capable of precise maneuvers and extremely high speeds.
UFO Report: The Condon Study Fails
Robert ML Baker Jr., Scientific Research, April 14, 1969
This report, worth $500,000 and running to 965 pages, may represent the final case against the UFO “cult”—indeed, the last scientific word on this controversial subject. Paradoxically, however, the report contains some evidence that the UFO phenomenon should be studied further.
UFOs – An Appraisal of the Problem
Statement of the Unidentified Flying Objects Subcommittee of the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics (AIAA), 1968
Includes a discussion of the Condon Report: “There are differences among the opinions and conclusions reached by the authors of the various chapters, and there are differences between these and Condon’s summary. Not all of the conclusions contained in the report itself are fully reflected in Condon’s summary.”
UFOs and the Condon Report—A Scientist’s Critique (James McDonald’s Critique of the Condon Report)
James E. McDonald
A summary of a speech delivered on February 12, 1969, in Wilmington, Delaware, to the DuPont chapter of the Scientific Research Society of America (RESA) by Dr. James E. McDonald, a member of the Condon Report, in which he criticized the conclusions of the Condon Report.
UFOs, Social Intelligence, and the Condon Committee (PDF) 
Diana Palmer Hoyt, a thesis submitted to Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University
The history of UFO sightings, together with their sociopolitical background and consequences, forms the broad subject of this study and provides a setting for analyzing how scientists deal, in public and in private, with anomalies that seem to bear on science. The 1968 Condon Report, commissioned by the Air Force—that is, the Scientific Study of Unidentified Flying Objects—offers a complex case for exploring how a study’s results and conclusions were shaped by everything that had happened in the UFO field beforehand.
The U.S. Air Force-Sponsored Colorado Project for the Scientific Study of UFOs
Dr. Michael D. Swords, 1995 MUFON Symposium Proceedings
One of the most important elements in the history of ufology is the so-called Condon project, centered at the University of Colorado from 1967 to 1968. This paper discusses the origins of the research problem, the methodological philosophy and overview, the activities of the work, the results, and the external impact. The paper finds a complex combination of personalities, attitudes, and theories entangled with political and social forces, which determined the project’s conclusions and weakened its ability to make any scientific contribution toward solving the UFO mystery. The impact it produced, however, was enormous, both negative and positive.
English Version
A fraudulent research report with which the U.S. Air Force covered up UFOs. The Condon Report was released in 1968, produced under a commission from the U.S. Air Force by an influential physicist at the University of Colorado, for the purpose of feigning a serious study and reaching conclusions that were not true, so as to end public enthusiasm for UFOs and Project Blue Book.
In the late 1960s, the U.S. Air Force signed a contract with the University of Colorado to conduct a scientific study of the evidence concerning the UFO phenomenon. The project director was Professor Edward U. Condon, a distinguished and influential physicist who made no secret of his view that, even at the outset, no substantive evidence of extraterrestrial visitation would be found. The study was relatively short (2 years), and the budget for serious scientific research was very low (about $500,000). When the Condon Report was released in 1968, the American scientific community accepted its apparently negative conclusions about the evidence for extraterrestrial visitation in a generally uncritical way, and to some extent even enthusiastically, because it brought a troublesome situation to an end. After an unusually rapid review, the National Academy of Sciences endorsed the report, and the Air Force quickly used the report as justification for ending any further public involvement with the UFO subject. Project Blue Book closed up shop. Yet the report’s negative conclusions were more apparent than real, because there was a substantial discrepancy between the conclusions in the “Summary of the Study,” written single-handedly by Condon, and the conclusions one could reasonably draw from the evidence presented in the body of the report. That report. (Bernard Haisch, UFOSkeptic.org)Project Blue Book closed up shop. Yet the report’s negative conclusions were more apparent than real, because there was a substantial discrepancy between the conclusions in the “Summary of the Study,” written single-handedly by Condon, and the conclusions one could reasonably draw from the evidence presented in the body of the report. That report. (Bernard Haisch, UFOSkeptic.org)Project Blue Book closed up shop. Yet the report’s negative conclusions were more apparent than real, because there was a substantial discrepancy between the conclusions in the “Summary of the Study,” written single-handedly by Condon, and the conclusions one could reasonably draw from the evidence presented in the body of the report. That report. (Bernard Haisch, UFOSkeptic.org)
In the late 1960’s, the United States Air Force issued a contract to the University of Colorado to carry out a scientific study of evidence concerning the UFO phenomenon. The director of the project was Prof. Edward U. Condon, a distinguished and influential physicist who made no secret of his opinion even at the outset that no substantive evidence for extraterrestrial visitation was liable to result. The study was relatively brief (2 years) and had a notably low budget (app. $500K) for a serious scientific study. When the Condon Report was released in 1968, the American scientific community accepted its negative apparent conclusion concerning evidence for extraterrestrial visitation in a generally uncritical way, and to some extent even an enthusiastic way since it offered an end to a troublesome situation. An endorsement of the Report by the National Academy of Sciences took place following an unusually rapid review and the Air Force quickly used the Report as a justification to terminate any further public involvement with the topic of UFOs. Project Blue Book closed up shop. The negative conclusion of the Report is more apparent than real however, since there is a substantial discrepancy between the conclusion in the “Summary of the Study” written by Condon singlehandedly, and the conclusion one could reasonably draw from the evidence presented in the body of the Report. (Bernard Haisch, UFOSkeptic.org)
Related articles
An Analysis of the Condon Report on the Colorado UFO Project
Peter A. Sturrock (Stanford University), Journal of Scientific Exploration
An in-depth analysis of the Condon Report spells out many discrepancies between Condon’s dismissive summary and the actual data. – An analysis of the evidence by category shows a substantial and significant difference between the findings of the project staff and the director’s findings on the project. Although both the director and the staff were cautious in stating their conclusions, the staff tended to emphasize challenging cases and unresolved questions, while the director emphasized the difficulty of further research and the possibility that no scientific knowledge was to be gained.
Dr. Thornton Page’s Review of the “Condon Report”
Thornton Page, American Journal of Physics, October 1969
In a sense, the Condon Report lives up to its title, Scientific Study, because physical principles and the available data were carefully applied to more than 56 selected, well-documented “cases” (UFO sightings), and 33 cases were explained as a result. Yet, as several other reviewers have pointed out, that leaves an unexplained proportion of more than about 10 percent, which is what caused all the uproar and forced the Air Force to fund the Colorado project in the first place. One might therefore argue that the conclusions Condon carefully wrote (the first five pages of the report) do not follow logically from the case studies.
Flying Saucer Fiasco
John G. Fuller, Look magazine, May 14, 1968
The extraordinary story of a $500,000 “trick” to make Americans believe the Condon Committee was conducting an objective investigation.
National Academy of Sciences (NAS) Panel Reviews the Condon Report
National Academy of Sciences / Sign Historical Group
A positive evaluation and endorsement of the University of Colorado report on unidentified flying objects (the Condon Report). – The panel’s charge was “to conduct an independent assessment of the scope, methods, and findings of the (University of Colorado) study, as reflected in the (University’s) report.”
Secrets of the Condon Report
Flying Saucers and UFOs, 1969, Vol. 3
Reprinted excerpts of articles on the Condon Report from Flying Saucers and Unidentified Flying Objects magazine.
Condon Report (Stanton Friedman review/comment)
Stanton Friedman (Stanton Friedman), Crash at Corona
The enthusiastic support [for the Condon study] that initially came from major private UFO groups soon soured, because it became obvious that the outspoken director of the study, Dr. Edward Condon, had concluded in advance that there was little to be learned from investigating UFOs.R
Condon Report (review/comment)
Bernard Haisch, Ph.D., astrophysicist
Yet the report’s negative conclusions were more apparent than real, because there was a substantial discrepancy between the conclusions in the “Summary of the Study,” written single-handedly by Condon, and the conclusions one could reasonably draw from the evidence presented in the body of the report. That report.
Condon Report (University of Colorado report on unidentified flying objects, 1968)
University of Colorado / U.S. Air Force
The full text of the Condon Report, conducted by the University of Colorado with the U.S. Air Force under the direction of Dr. Edward U. Condon.
The Condon Report and UFOs – J. Allen Hynek review
J. Allen Hynek, Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, April 1969
Hynek disagreed with the Condon Report and, in this review, explained why.
The Truth About the Condon Report
NICAP (National Investigations Committee on Aerial Phenomena), UFO Investigator, Vol. IV, No. 9, SPECIAL (January 1969)
As we predicted, the conclusions of the University of Colorado UFO project were wholly negative. Yet some chapters stand in strange contradiction to what the project director, Dr. Edward U. Condon, said in his two opening sections. Some of the reports indicate that there may exist structured, intelligently controlled unknown objects capable of precise maneuvers and extremely high speeds.
UFO Report: The Condon Study Fails
Robert ML Baker Jr., Scientific Research, April 14, 1969
This report, worth $500,000 and running to 965 pages, may represent the final case against the UFO “cult”—indeed, the last scientific word on this controversial subject. Paradoxically, however, the report contains some evidence that the UFO phenomenon should be studied further.
UFOs – An Appraisal of the Problem
Statement of the Unidentified Flying Objects Subcommittee of the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics (AIAA), 1968
Includes a discussion of the Condon Report: “There are differences among the opinions and conclusions reached by the authors of the various chapters, and there are differences between these and Condon’s summary. Not all of the conclusions contained in the report itself are fully reflected in Condon’s summary.” R
UFOs and the Condon Report—A Scientist’s Critique (James McDonald’s Critique of the Condon Report)
James E. McDonald
A summary of a speech delivered on February 12, 1969, in Wilmington, Delaware, to the DuPont chapter of the Scientific Research Society of America (RESA) by Dr. James McDonald, a member of the Condon Report, in which he criticized the conclusions of the Condon Report.R
UFOs, Social Intelligence, and the Condon Committee (PDF)
Diana Palmer Hoyt, a thesis submitted to Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University
The history of UFO sightings, together with their sociopolitical background and consequences, forms the broad subject of this study and provides a setting for analyzing how scientists deal, in public and in private, with anomalies that seem to bear on science. The 1968 Condon Report, commissioned by the Air Force—that is, the Scientific Study of Unidentified Flying Objects—offers a complex case for exploring how a study’s results and conclusions were shaped by everything that had happened in the UFO field beforehand.
The U.S. Air Force-Sponsored Colorado Project for the Scientific Study of UFOs
Dr. Michael D. Swords, 1995 MUFON Symposium Proceedings
One of the most important elements in the history of ufology is the so-called Condon project, centered at the University of Colorado from 1967 to 1968. This paper discusses the origins of the research problem, the methodological philosophy and overview, the activities of the work, the results, and the external impact. The paper finds a complex combination of personalities, attitudes, and theories entangled with political and social forces, which determined the project’s conclusions and weakened its ability to make any scientific contribution toward solving the UFO mystery. The impact it produced, however, was enormous, both negative and positive.
